Standing Committee B

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Children Bill [Lords]

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move
 That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Children Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 12th October at 9.25 am) meet on— 
 (a) Tuesday 12th October at 2.30 pm, 
 (b) Thursday 14th October at 8.55 am and 2.30pm, 
 (c) Tuesday 19th October at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm, 
 (d) Thursday 21st October at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm. 
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following Order— 
 Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 to 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 to 41, Schedule 4, Clauses 42 to 56, New Clauses and new Schedules, Remaining proceedings on the Bill. 
 (3) the proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 21st October. 
I am delighted, Mr. Benton, that we shall be serving under your fair, calm, sagacious and good-humoured chairmanship, and we look forward to long debates. I worked with you as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and we had some good visits—I remember our visit to Switzerland. I know you to be a fair and honest chairman, and I am sure that all of us on the Committee look forward to working with you. 
 Several members of the Committee have expertise in the issues before us. I am particularly delighted to see the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) opposite me; he has probably sat through more children's Bills than any other member of the Committee. He will undoubtedly bring the experience of his past deliberations to bear on the detail of the Bill. I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I noticed, looking through her CV yesterday, that she and I attended the same university; I am sure that she got more out of it than I did, although I certainly had a good time there, and remember it with joy. 
 Many members of the Committee have extensive experience of children's issues, and spent time in their professional lives before joining the House working with children in a number of ways. I should particularly like to draw attention to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), who has done absolutely sterling work in supporting me, and whose experience in social services I value enormously. She always brings a pragmatic and practical element to our formal discussions about difficult policy decisions. I should also like to draw attention to my hon. Friend 
 the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for whom this will be a great moment in his time as a Member of Parliament. We shall miss him when he goes. We were saying before he arrived in the Committee Room that so cleverly has he tabled his amendments that he will find himself moving the lead amendment in many of the groups, so he will have the opportunity to open and close debates on issues that are of concern to him. 
 The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) also have experience of working in social care. The hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) have spent time in teaching, which is relevant to what we will be discussing. 
 In common with several members of the Committee, I grew impatient as this small but very important Bill wended its way through the House of Lords. It now comes to the Commons for our input, and all hon. Members look forward to making it the landmark Bill that I believe it will be. When our successors reflect on the measure, I think that they will recognise, as I have said elsewhere, that it provides the legislative spine on which we can build a complete transformation of children's services, thereby securing a step change in outcomes, not just for some children but for every child. Hon. Members are anxious to debate some vital issues, and I look forward to our discussions being constructive and good-humoured. 
 I am genuinely grateful for the support for the Bill from Members on both sides of the House. To date, the debate has been very constructive and extremely helpful. I hope that hon. Members will agree that many of the amendments made in the House of Lords, and others which will be debated in Committee, reflect our response to the concerns and priorities that have been expressed across the political spectrum. 
 The amendments that I have tabled will deliver further on the commitments that we made in the House of Lords. Hon. Members are inundated with bits of paper and I apologise to the Committee for having been unable to table the amendments before the recess. However, I hope that all Committee members received copies before the end of last week and that they have been able to reflect on them. 
 I look forward to a constructive debate that will lead to momentous change of which I hope we will all be proud when, in years to come, we reflect on our time in the House of Commons.

Tim Loughton: Without repeating the Minister's superlatives in appearing to buy your favours, Mr. Benton, I echo her sentiments in saying how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, which I have not done before.
 As the right hon. Lady said, this important Bill, which has cross-party support, provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the legislation right, in the interests of all children. I echo her comments that the constructive engagement of hon. Members on both sides of this House and the House of Lords will help to get the measure right. 
 I will not give a profile of every member of the Committee, but I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has considerable knowledge of family matters and who speaks for our party on women's affairs. Other colleagues, too, have participated in debates on the Bill. 
 I agree with the Minister's comments that we will miss the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre enormously. He never shirks from balancing his comments about why measures are appropriate and should be supported with attacks on the past record of the Conservatives, and, especially, on my approach to matters; no doubt he will make similar contributions in his swansong in the coming days. He brings enormous knowledge to the House from his previous experience and from his activities with the all-party children's group, which has been so engaged in the Bill. 
 On the programming resolution, we are concerned about the length of time that has been allocated to the Bill. We would have liked more Committee sittings, particularly as the number of amendments and new clauses to consider has mushroomed in the past few days. I take the Minister's points about that, and she was good enough to contact me last week ahead of tabling the amendments, but the Government have tabled 13 new clauses, one new schedule and at least 55 new amendments, and it is a shame that we will not have more time to consider them. The outside bodies that are interested in the Bill and have engaged in its development, of which there are many, have also been given little time to respond. 
 I remind the Committee that the Lords started their Committee consideration on 4 May—some five months ago—so the Government have had a lot of time. I am also not aware that we have had new explanatory notes for any of the new clauses. The notes that accompany the Bill are dated 19 July, which was when the Bill received its First Reading in the Commons. There have been no new explanatory notes other than the rough description of the amendments that accompanied the Minister's letter to the Committee, and we have had no formal notes going into the detail of what some of the new clauses, in particular, will involve. I hope that as the Committee progresses, the Minister will as a matter of urgency provide us with more detailed notes on the amendments, so that we can consider them properly. 
 We tabled our amendments after Second Reading back in September, which has given the Government plenty of time to consider them. It has also allowed other Committee members to see what other amendments might need to be tabled and, in many cases, to add their names to our amendments. I might say therefore that we have been better prepared. I am concerned that we will not have sufficient time to consider many of the long-standing amendments that we and other Members have tabled to reflect some outstanding concerns of the upper House. Furthermore, I do not think that I have served on a Bill Committee that has had to consider so many new clauses. I hope that in the confines of the time available, there will be sufficient time to discuss them. 
 I am concerned also about clause 2, which we are due to debate later this morning. Clause 2 was completely revised in the House of Lords with all-party support. We agreed that the new version strengthened enormously the role of the Children's Commissioner, which was much more in keeping with the original intentions of Ministers, the Green Paper and all who want to see enhanced protection. It is a great sadness that the commissioner's powers are to be diluted again by a series of Government amendments. 
 Given the timings, it is also strange that the Government tabled a range of amendments on clause 2, when a more efficient way would surely have been to delete clause 2 and replace it with a new one. They seem to have tabled the amendments to mask the fact that they are destroying the clause, because in fact they will completely undermine the improvements made in the upper House. It is a retrograde step and has been described as creating a commissioner who will have the fewest teeth of all those in the United Kingdom and as one who will be all ears but no teeth. 
 We also have serious questions about the relationship between the England/UK commissioner and the other commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We want clarification of how they will work, which may take up a lot of time in Committee. Another big subject on which we hope the Minister will provide far more detail is clause 9 and the database and information sharing. I believe that the provisions are a mess, and we will elaborate on that in speaking to our amendments and those tabled by other Members. It is clear that the Government have not completed their thinking. The Minister said that she hoped that further amendments to clarify the detail of regulations would be available by the Committee stage, but it is one of the few clauses on which the swamp of new amendments tabled by the Government last week has no effect. We want much more reassurance from the Minister before we can agree to clause 9. I know that other members of the Committee share those concerns. 
 There are many other issues to be raised, but I shall not go into the detail of them now, because we want to get on with the debate on individual clauses. However, I am slightly confused by the ordering of the amendments, although I am sure that that has been done quite properly and with extraordinary logic by the Clerks responsible for the Bill. I am not entirely sure, for example, why an amendment that I tabled to the last clause will be considered in relation to clause 1. 
 Last night, I embarked on what I thought would be an easy exercise of marking out who was responsible for which amendment. However, it required all my highlighter pens to come up with a colour-coded chart of who does what, and I am still baffled by the matter. I hope, Mr. Benton, that you will take the proceedings gently, or you may end up being as confused as some of the other members of the Committee. On second thoughts, however, I am sure that you will not, because otherwise you would not have been selected as Chairman of this august Committee. 
 I end by reiterating something that I said on Second Reading. The Bill is worth while, and it is a suitable response to the Victoria Climbie tragedy and to all the other tragedies that we are aware of, but which do not receive such a high profile. We all want to see many important measures in the Bill enacted as soon as possible. However, I fear that during the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords the overriding concern of the media and the outside world was the issue of smacking. Smacking is an important subject, on which we all have different views. The Conservatives have allowed a free vote on the matter, so we do not experience the same problems as other parties, but it is an important issue that was not originally in the Bill. I fear that the subject will completely overshadow and dominate all our proceedings on Report, but I am relieved that it has not entered into the Committee stage, thereby giving us more time to consider the important details of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will respect that, and will not try to sneak in amendments during the Committee proceedings which could sidetrack our deliberations. 
 I look forward to considering the Bill. We must get it right, and we shall engage constructively and positively with other members of the Committee to ensure that the Bill that leaves the Committee is an improved version of the one—already greatly improved in another place—that came to it. I believe that we can improve it still further.

Annette Brooke: I, too, Mr. Benton, welcome you to the chairmanship of this important Committee. I also apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams); hon. Members may have noticed that he has secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, and is currently speaking there. He will participate fully later sittings.
 We, too, want to place on record our wish to make a constructive contribution to this important Bill. We welcome the Bill and have much to say about it, although I shall not go into detail because there will be plenty of time to do so later in our discussions. Our greatest disappointment concerns the amendment tabled by the Government which reverses the tremendous improvements made in the House of Lords. We will therefore dwell on that amendment at great length, and I hope that we will have a good debate on the basic principles as well as the details. 
 I, too, am looking forward to working on the Committee with people who have such a wide range of relevant skills to contribute. I often tell people that one of my most enjoyable parliamentary experiences was considering the Sexual Offences Bill, which raises a few eyebrows in my constituency. Some hon. Members present also served on the Committee scrutinising that Bill and we had some excellent debates. One left that Committee feeling that one was making a real contribution to the future of our society. I hope that we 
 will all walk away from this Committee knowing that we have done something positive for the start of the century. 
 I share the concerns about lack of time. I hope that, throughout the proceedings, we will be able to assess the progress that is being made. No one is here to waste time or to prevent us getting through the business. There is a genuine commitment to make progress, but many issues need detailed consideration during the debate. That is our one caveat this morning; otherwise we look forward to constructive debates. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Joe Benton: May I remind the Committee that a money resolution is connected to the Bill? Copies are available in the Room.

Margaret Hodge: I want to clarify that for the remaining morning sessions of the Committee, we will meet at 8.55 am. Is that on the programme resolution?

Joe Benton: Yes. It is included. I can confirm that that will be the future starting time. I should also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. I also remind hon. Members to switch off their mobile phones.Clause 1 Establishment

Clause 1 - Establishment

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in
clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'Children's', insert 'Rights'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 163 to 165, Government amendment No. 175 and amendment No. 50, in
clause 56, page 35, line 19, leave out 'Children' and insert 'Children's Welfare and Rights'.

Hilton Dawson: May I say what a pleasure it is once again to serve in a Committee under your wise chairmanship, Mr. Benton? I should also like to thank the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for their kind words. I should also like to compliment the Government Whips. That may be an unusual thing to do, but it is in the interests of parliamentary democracy that Back Benchers can table amendments on matters about which they feel strongly.
 The Whips have shown a degree of tolerance and forbearance towards me that would surprise many people, possibly outside the parliamentary Labour party and possibly inside it. Clearly the Government Whips have an important job to do, but although I have occasionally been a pain in the neck, they have always been helpful, constructive and sensible. If we disagree—I hope that we do not—about any of the 
 matters on which I have tabled amendments, I trust that we will all recognise that such disagreements are between decent and well-meaning people who are simply trying to do their best for children. 
 I am pleased to open the debate with the positive intention of inserting the word ''rights'' right at the beginning. If I had handled the task better, I would have tried to insert it in line 1, rather than in line 2. I am sad and shocked that the Government amendments in the group—Nos. 163 to 165 and 173—remove that very word. I seek clarification through my amendment. 
 On Second Reading, it was obvious that my right hon. Friend was looking at rights in a particular way and interpreting them as individual rights. She thought that if too much emphasis were placed on rights, the commissioner's role would be skewed towards investigating individual cases and the commissioner would be overwhelmed by such cases. I do not recognise such a definition and I am not sure who does. It is important that we consider that issue during the next few minutes. 
 It is particularly unfortunate that the Government should be trying to remove the word ''rights'' from what everyone has acknowledged is a colossally important Bill, given that one of their earliest actions was to incorporate the European convention on human rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. In the same first term, we saw the creation of the Disability Rights Commission and the children's rights director, and even now we look forward to the development of the commission for equality and human rights. At this stage, however, we seem to have gone timid on rights when we are discussing the rights, interests and needs of the most vulnerable people in our society. 
 The Minister wants the Children's Commissioner to concentrate on children's interests rather than rights, so perhaps at this stage we should give those important words some thought. It may be useful to note that David Archard, the modern philosopher who has thought deeply and published widely on issues relating to children, family and the state, has set out a fairly classic interest-related theory of rights, which probably goes back a couple of hundred years to Kant. The theory is that a right arises when someone has an interest of sufficient importance to impose on others certain duties whose discharge allows the right-holder to enjoy the interest in question. There is a clear distinction there between rights and interests, but it is not about individual rights and a community of interest. 
 Clearly, someone who has rights is someone of significance. Their interests are of particular importance, and the duties of those who are charged with meeting them are vital. There is nothing wrong with talking about interests and welfare—indeed, it is entirely appropriate—but we usually acknowledge that those are of a lesser order than rights. For instance, we often discuss the interests and welfare of animals, but rarely their rights, and most of us think it quite odd to do that. Nationally, we talk about the best 
 interests of children, but internationally we declare our allegiance to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. 
 Rights are the basis of a liberal, democratic society. They uphold the fundamental obligations of the state to the individual and encourage openness about the entitlements of individuals and the success of Governments in meeting their needs, which is vital. There is nothing wrong with the word ''rights'' and nothing to be afraid of in it. There is no reason to remove the word and plenty of reason to insert it in such a Bill. It worries me when powerful people, even those as benign and committed to children's interests as the Minister, seek to excise such an important word. Those who seek to erase ''rights'' seem to be saying something about the value that we ascribe to children, the reluctance of the state to be challenged or the power that we are prepared to give the commissioner—or perhaps all three. 
 I hope I am not alone among Government Members in voicing these concerns. I cannot believe that I am alone in having them; indeed, I know that I am not alone in Parliament. I am grateful for the support of those who signed up to amendment No. 52. I am also glad to have the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I do not agree with all of its 19th report of this Session on the Bill, I earnestly believe that every member of this Committee should study it carefully, because it is a wise document. 
 With regret, I share the Joint Committee's disappointment at the tone of the Government's message that ''rights-based'' is a negative concept. It stated that there is 
''an excessive, and in our view unfounded, anxiety about the notion of a 'rights-based' commissioner.'' 
I agree that there is a clear distinction between a rights-based and a complaints-based commissioner. I am not aware of anyone advocating establishing a complaints-based commissioner, whereas a wide consensus of people concerned with the issue are committed to the commissioner being firmly based on the concept of children's rights.

Julie Morgan: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the move away from a rights-based commissioner. Does he agree that commissioners or similar bodies throughout the world are, on the whole, based on rights, and that the Children's Commissioner would be weakened by the proposed changes?

Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I would go further. It is more than ''on the whole''— every commissioner that has been set up in the world has a focus on children's rights. Yesterday evening I was given a list of the duties and responsibilities of new commissioners in Malta and Croatia, which are firmly based on children's rights. Why a country such as ours cannot base the role of the commissioner on children's rights is beyond me.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the European network of children's commissioners is meeting in Cardiff in Wales later this week? Is he also
 aware that, because of the proposed changes, the Children's Commissioner in England may not be able to gain admittance to that organisation?

Hilton Dawson: I have certainly heard that and I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is beyond me why we should want to set up a commissioner who would be excluded from the growing company of commissioners across Europe and the world because they were so weak. A Government as committed as ours to children's issues and a country as powerful as ours which offers a good future to our children should have the best Children's Commissioner in the world, not the worst. It is extraordinary.

Andrew Turner: So far the hon. Gentleman has referred exclusively to the rights of children in respect of the Government, and the need for the Government to respond to the rights which he recognises that children possess. Does he accept that rights are exercised not uniquely by or against the Government, but against other people? How does he expect other people to respond to those rights, and how would their rights be balanced against the rights that he wants to include in the clause?

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he leads me into my next argument. Throughout this group of amendments there is a worrying thread, which may also run through some amendments that he has tabled, and a train of thought implying that emphasising children's rights somehow pits children against parents. I am a parent and firmly believe that, by and large, the best advocates for children's rights in this country are parents. The UN convention explicitly respects the responsibility of parents to bring up children according to their own values and to educate children according to their principles. It also firmly sets out the importance of reuniting families.
 The issue of children's rights is, by and large, one of power and of the powerlessness of children in the face of the state. It is a function of the fact that children are the only human beings in this country who cannot vote. It should be emphasised that if children—who are powerless in the face not only of Governments but of the judiciary, the professions, organisations and institutions—are ever to have their voices heard, their interests recognised and their rights respected, it is vital to base our approach on a watchdog that is firmly grounded in children's rights. 
 Parents who want to do their best for their children—as well as a state that wants to improve conditions for children, organisations and professions that want genuinely to serve them, and children themselves—will benefit from the independent champion that a Children's Commissioner based on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child will be. The commissioner will be charged with protecting not only the interests of the children of this country but their rights. If we embrace children's 
 rights today, we shall serve them well, but if we water down those rights, we shall be missing a tremendous opportunity.

Annette Brooke: I want to echo all the hon. Gentleman's eloquent comments. My colleagues and I were happy to subscribe to the amendment, because we thought it staked out the most important ground that we needed to cover on the issue of the commissioner. There is a fundamental difference between the schools of thought about whether there should be a rights-based commissioner, or one that is listening, and whether we are talking about a reactive or a proactive role. Those are fundamental differences, and I do not understand the motivation behind the Government's amendments, which do not sit happily with much of the excellent work that they have already carried out.
 We now have the issue of human rights in this country's legislation. I express this as someone who does not understand the Government's train of thought: I passionately believe that they should be listening to all the many children's organisations and others, who are united in the view that we should have a rights-based commissioner. So many professionals cannot be wrong about that. Those who have considered the activities of children's commissioners in other countries are united. At present, our Government are out on a limb, and I really do not understand why. 
 Of course, listening is important—we shall be discussing that and arguing later that more listening should take place—but it is not in itself enough to improve children's lives. That is what we mean by suggesting that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child be at the very heart of the Bill. What we really need is a commissioner who will promote and protect children's rights, and have the power to carry out the follow-up action that is needed. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published guidelines on independent human rights bodies for children, and there are also the Paris principles. Five essential components are outlined. Independence is important, and we will obviously return to that debate on a later clause. 
 A human rights framework, strong investigatory powers, the impact on law and policy, an effective remedy for infringement of rights—the Government's approach here does not relate to those important principles. We have the opportunity within the Bill to put ourselves on the same footing as other European countries. To be out on a limb and out of step with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes no sense. We need to heed some of the comments that the Joint Committee on Human Rights made about the Bill. It said: 
 ''The view of the existing Commissioners was that the language defining the new Commissioner's mandate is far too weak, and contrasts with the much more robust duties placed on the other Commissioners, which require them to be more proactive in promoting, safeguarding and keeping under review. 
 The Bill as drafted concentrates on the procedural aspects—that is promoting the views of and interests of children . . . In our report last year we envisaged that the Commissioner should be given a much more substantive role.''
Those voices come from all directions. As well as listening to children, the Minister should listen to all those voices that say that this must be a rights-based commissioner. That is vital. 
 We signed up to the convention in 1991, which is a long time ago. It gives us the opportunity and the time to ensure that we implement it. It provides a common vision and language for securing a good childhood for everyone. It gives us a detailed strategy for meeting all children's needs. Why not implement it fully at this stage? We also need a commissioner who gives equal opportunities due credibility and accountability. I have not tabled an amendment on that but somewhere in our specification it should state that the commissioner must pay due regard to equality of opportunity. 
 The president of the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to explain that with such limited powers and questionable independence, it is unlikely that the England commissioner would be able to join the European network. Surely we need to get ourselves ahead of the game rather than lagging behind. There are many instances of countries adopting our models and going on to make much more progress. We are behind at the moment, but why not take this opportunity to be ahead and to lead the world? 
 There is much to be said—many other hon. Members will wish to contribute—but I heartily endorse amendment No. 52 and oppose the Government amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will address these important points and put ''rights'' back at the heart of the functions of the Children's Commissioner.

Tim Loughton: I want to support the amendment and also to speak to amendment No. 50. I do not place great store by individual words and titles but this is more fundamental. It is summed up by Government amendment No. 164, which reads, ''leave out 'rights'''. The Bill refers to children but leaves out their rights. This will be a rights-light Bill. It will be about complaints, rather than about upholding rights and promoting the well-being of children, which we all want.
 The current wording is 
''promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children''. 
That will be diluted, if the Government get their way with their amendments, to promoting awareness of the views of children. That sounds a bit wet. Little more than a glorified children's television presenter could perform the same function if it does not have the importance and powers that we are trying to give to the champion of children, as the Children's Commissioner should be. I fear that I return to the phrase coined in another place of ''all ears and no teeth''. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is right that the Government seem to have gone timid on the issue. 
 I hope that the Minister has a solid case. She may wish to counter the philosophy that the hon. Gentleman so learnedly quoted—it was way above my head. However, what is wrong with children's rights? I agree that rights are best protected by parents, and we 
 will seek amendments to reinforce the role of parents. They are the first line of defence for a child's welfare unless abuse happens, in which case we need the role of outside bodies, part of which will be the Children's Commissioner's responsibility. I will be hard pressed not to support the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre in a Division unless the Minister can say why we should have a rights-light Bill. The debate is fundamental to our discussion of future clauses. 
 Amendment No. 50, which deals with the short title defined at the end of the Bill in clause 56, has been shunted to our first deliberations. There are two points to the amendment. The first is that there is more to the Bill than just calling it the Children Act. We need a better description of welfare and rights, and the title that I have suggested echoes the rights case that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has made. Secondly, there is a practical reason—it is not entirely mischievous—and I suggested a similar amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. We have so many pieces of legislation with the same name: there is the Children Act 1989, and this will be another Children Act. We are constantly confusing ourselves about which Act we are referring to, so I am trying to be helpful without making a weighty political point. Although the Minister may not agree with one of the words that I suggested, it might be more useful if the Government added different words to the Bill's title to differentiate it from other legislation, primarily the Children Act 1989. 
 To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, I am concerned that we should be creating the best. We should be leading the world in the commissioner that we are producing. We have a good reputation in supporting child protection, although clearly we need to do more, which is why we have the Bill. It contains a lot of innovative measures, which we need to get right. If the Children's Commissioner for England/UK is not even powerful enough to be on a level playing field with the other European commissioners, we are clearly doing something wrong. If that suggestion is true, the Government need to justify why they are not following some of the best practice of other countries. Children deserve protection in this country no less than they do in countries on the continent or in other parts of the United Kingdom. 
 Unless the Minister can come up with a convincing reason why we should leave out the rights of children, I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 52, as well as my amendment, No. 50.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, she will be able to convince us that she has a reason for the changes that she has proposed. However, it seems to me that the Children's Commissioner is much weakened by the changes. I believe that we should have a rights-based commissioner. If we do not, the English commissioner will be the odd one out in the European network. I mentioned that the ENOC is meeting in
 Cardiff at the end of this week. How will our English Children's Commissioner feel about going to such meetings in the future?

Andrew Turner: I always thought that one of the benefits of devolution was that different countries could do things in different ways. I accept that, in this particular case, there might be something wrong with being the odd one out, but is the hon. Lady advancing the proposition that, in general, it is a bad thing to be the odd one out?

Julie Morgan: I would regret it if the English commissioner did not have similar powers to those of the other commissioners. I am thinking not only of the children in England, but of the role of the English Children's Commissioner in non-devolved areas in Wales—an issue that we will discuss later. Welsh children will be affected by the powers of the English commissioner and it is therefore important for the English Children's Commissioner to have the same rights as the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I have seen how the Children's Commissioner for Wales works and have concluded that it is essential for the commissioner's role to be based on a rights model. We need a proactive commissioner who will stand up for children's rights and will be independent. I am therefore very sorry that the Government have weakened the role of the Children's Commissioner for England.
 I do not want to talk at great length because most of the points that I wished to make have already been covered. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us in her reply that there is a reason behind the proposals, and that there is a reason why the commissioner who will be operating in England, and perhaps in parts of Wales, will not have the same powers to affect the lives of children as all the other commissioners in Europe and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, the rest of the world.

Hywel Williams: I also wish to support the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. This is not just a matter of a name change, as has already been pointed out. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, the Children's Commissioner will apparently have powers to act in Wales. I am concerned about the confusion that that might cause in the minds of children; they might be able to go to the Children's Commissioner for Wales, who would be working on a somewhat different basis. I am sure that we will have time to explore those arguments later.
 I also want to point out that the name change has a significance of its own. It is significant in relation to the perception of the role of the commissioner by the public, and particularly by children. A French philosopher who died last week pointed out some time ago that naming of objects in some ways both defines what those objects are and creates them. As has already been pointed out, the change is sufficiently 
 important to make the European association consider not admitting the Children's Commissioner for England. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has already referred to the commissioner as the ''England commissioner''. Hon. Members might recall that I asked the Minister on Second Reading what the commissioner would be called, and I do not think that she gave me an answer. Perhaps she can be clearer today. The name ''Children's Commissioner'' or ''Children's Rights Commissioner'' might be confusing, given that we have Children's Commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The alternative of ''Children's Commissioner (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)'' would be rather clumsy. I am in favour of terminological exactitude rather than inexactitude. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Margaret Hodge: Some of the issues raised in the debate will be discussed when we consider the many amendments on how the commissioner will function. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that I sincerely believe that the Bill and the Government's amendments to its early clauses will ensure that we have the very best commissioner in the world, built on our experience of the workings of commissioners in other countries. I hope during our discourse that I can convince him and other members of the Committee that the commissioner will not be weak, but very strong, and utterly independent of Government. His will be a powerful voice arguing the case on behalf of children. Children will be strongly involved in the process of the commissioner's appointment, which if it is successful will come to be seen as an historic moment in which we strengthened the voice of children and their rights in society.
 We have not gone timid on rights as my hon. Friend suggested, which is why we accepted an amendment in the House of Lords that in doing his or her work the commissioner must have regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I hope that he agrees that in accepting that amendment we recognise the importance of the convention.

Hilton Dawson: I entirely acknowledge the Government's good work in tabling the amendment in the other place. However, clause 2(8) states that the children's commissioner
''must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.'' 
Is not it therefore absurd to remove the word ''rights'' from the clause? It makes no sense at all.

Margaret Hodge: I would argue that we are talking not about the context and how the commissioner will work, but about his focus and the functions that he fulfils, which is why we say that he must have regard to the UNCRC. In putting the stress on his working in respect of the outcomes that children have told us are important to them, we have tried to ensure that the commissioner does not spend his time policing children's individual rights which flow simply from having the sole function in relation to the UNCRC, but considers the wider policies and interests of
 children and reflects them, in respect of Government and, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, other parts of society.
 The two notions—having regard to the UNCRC, and focusing on a much broader picture—are not conflicting, but complementary, and I put it to my hon. Friend and to Opposition Members, that if we focused simply on rights, it would limit the work that the commissioner could do on behalf of children. That is why I genuinely believe that we are establishing a much better commissioner than those elsewhere. 
 In respect of my hon. Friend's narrow amendment, no other commissioner has rights built in to the title, although I accept his point, which was also made by other hon. Members, that there is only a rights focus in the work that they undertake.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is possible to have a rights focus and also influence policy? Many commissioners work at both levels, with one level feeding into the other, and that is an ideal situation.

Margaret Hodge: I have had this discussion with my hon. Friend on many occasions. It is clearly correct to state that an interest in issues that impact on children will frequently arise from individual cases that children raise with the commissioner. However, my experience from observing the work of commissioners elsewhere is that if one gives a limited rights focus to the commissioner, inevitably, given the time constraints, their focus will primarily be on policing individual rights. We would lose the broader focus that I want this powerful champion of children to have, which is the interests of children.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre held a meeting with a number of young people as part of the HeadsUp project. I have a copy of the minutes of that meeting, as I hope do other members of the Committee. What came out of it, as well as from discussions that I have had with children and young people up and down the country, is that no child talks about having a rights-based commissioner focused on the UNCRC. When discussing what the commissioner should do, they want somebody who will focus on international issues such as trade justice, on national issues such as the environment and asylum, and on specific issues such as bullying, sex education, drug abuse and racism. 
 If a commissioner is established with a purely rights focus, it is inevitable that the main focus of their work will be on pursuing individual complaints, as has happened in Wales. The commissioner in Wales has a heavy case load of about 500 cases a year. To think that he can pursue those effectively, while at the same time taking a view on the wider issues that we wish the English commissioner to champion, is mistaken.

Dari Taylor: I have listened to the debate with great care, and I put it to the Minister that if we added the word ''rights'' to the Bill, we would be defining a tight, prescriptive legal process and framework, and frankly we would end up with one winner: the process of law rather than the child. I hope that she will make that statement loud and clear.

Margaret Hodge: I am married to a lawyer so I have strong inhibitions about that statement, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view. If children did not already have a whole range of organisations, tribunals and legal processes through which they can pursue their individual rights, members of this Committee would have a point. However, off the top of my head, I have thought of several: children can go to the local government ombudsman; under the Children Act 1989 there are a range of complaints procedures available; the bodies of the Commission for Social Care Inspection have a complaints procedure; there is a special educational needs tribunal, a Disability Rights Commission and an Equal Opportunities Commission; and subject to parliamentary processes there will be a new equality and human rights commission.
 There is a range of organisations, tribunals and legal processes through which children can pursue their individual complaints and rights. We do not want the English commissioner to be bogged down in the pursuit of those individual rights at the expense of wider concerns.

Tim Loughton: I appreciate the Minister's point, but I do not understand why adding the simple word ''rights'' will suddenly lead to a deluge of work for the commissioner which apparently ignores all the other powers and directions that he will be given in establishing his office in the first place. In any case, the Minister's amendment is designed to remove the phrase
''safeguarding the rights and interests of children''.
 The provision refers to rights and interests. It is not exclusively about rights, and the word ''interests'' encompasses all the other things that we are trying to do, so she has not made the case that the commissioner would suddenly have his whole work load changed so as to make his job completely impractical.

Margaret Hodge: I have to say a couple of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we are not changing the fact that the commissioner must have regard to the UNCRC, so we are not removing that aspect from his or her work. Unlike Opposition Members, I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's stance, because unless I misread the papers—I do not always believe everything that I read in them—the Conservative party is in the business of completely removing the Human Rights Act from our legal framework. Having a rights dimension to children's legislation would sit a bit oddly with losing the human rights dimension for the whole—[Interruption.] The two are related.

Julie Morgan: I am grateful for the spirit in which we are able to have this exchange, because my right hon. Friend and I have disagreed on this issue before. However, I feel that I must put it on the record that I think she has misunderstood how the Children's Commissioner for Wales works. Some 500 children have referred themselves to him, but he does not follow up each of those referrals; in fact, the number that he
 follows up is very small. Rather, he and his office make certain that the cases go to the right agencies, all of which he has listed. I am thinking of the Disability Rights Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the ombudsman. The number of individual cases that the commissioner deals with is minute, so he is not bogged down by them. He spends most of his time working and communicating with children in different groups and trying to influence the policy of the Assembly, where he has had a profound effect.

Margaret Hodge: We have had this dialogue over many months, and my view, having observed the commissioner in Wales—one of the joys of devolution is that we may have different settlements in different countries of the United Kingdom—is that there has been a greater focus there on individual complaints than I want the English commissioner to have in the work that I hope he or she will do on our behalf.

Hywel Williams: The Minister said that there is a different emphasis in Wales. The record will show that earlier she used the term ''bogged down''. Was she referring to the Children's Commissioner for Wales being bogged down, and did she mean bogged down in general?

Margaret Hodge: I was referring to the commissioner being bogged down by individual complaints. I know that that view is not shared by a number of hon. Members who represent Wales, and I understand the informal nature of much of the work that the commissioner undertakes with Members of the Welsh Assembly. However, from what I have observed of his work, I have been somewhat disappointed by the sparsity of the reports on general issues that have emerged from him.

Lorna Fitzsimons: May I check my understanding? The job that we are discussing is similar to our job. We are meant to be legislators and scrutineers but also caseworkers, and obviously one role informs the other, but we have to get the balance right between our different roles. Does my right hon. Friend want the commissioner to look up, and to look across Government in the widest possible spheres to ensure that Ministers foresee issues that may be of interest or detriment to children as and when they come up, rather than simply looking down and policing the rights that are already enshrined in legislation anyway?

Margaret Hodge: The matter is about both foreseeing and reflecting on children's issues and concerns. We are attempting to focus clearly on outcomes and what happens to children. Although the amendments remove the references to rights, they retain the references to views and interests interpreted in light of our regard to the UNCRC. Later amendments will restore the broad focus, which is in line with guiding principles that inform the rest of the changes.
 I want to deal with some of the issues arising from the argument about whether the commissioner is rights-based and whether he would have the independence to reflect on important individual cases. That was another reason why, having listened to representations in the other place, we included the new power to consider individual cases where there are wider ramifications and where there is no alternative mechanism to which children can refer. I hope that all members of the Committee welcome that. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole talked about the commissioner being reactive, not proactive. I challenge that view: if we had an entirely rights-based commissioner without the broader focus on the outcomes that children have said are important to them, the role would be entirely based around the UNCRC and entirely focused on the policing of individual rights, so the commissioner would have to be reactive to complaints made to him on that basis. We are creating a proactive, not a reactive, mechanism, and the route that the hon. Lady wants to take would be reactive. 
 I agree that just listening would not be enough, but listening must be a precondition if the commissioner is to be effective in conveying the views and concerns of children in the reports that he may choose to publish and in the annual report that he will have to lay before Parliament. We wish to ensure that he listens before he acts. 
 I take the hon. Lady's point about equal opportunities being mentioned in the job description, and I will reflect on it. In all our work, particularly in listening to children, we are trying to ensure that the group of children and young people who advise me and who will be involved in the commissioner's appointment is representative of children as a whole. For example, we have listened to representations from Mencap, and several people with learning disabilities actively conveyed their views to me at the first meeting of the children and youth board.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have listened with great interest to this very good debate. I am greatly reassured by what my right hon. Friend says about this subject being above and beyond rights. She says that it includes rights but that it is about much more. The hon. Member for Caernarfon shrewdly remarked on the philosopher who passed away last week and on definition by words, but much of this is about definition by actions. The Minister has alluded to further actions, but it might be helpful if she expanded on the sorts of actions beyond the rights agenda which she anticipates the commissioner taking.

Margaret Hodge: I am very wary of treading on that ground; were I do to so, I would immediately be accused of interfering with the commissioner's independence. However, were I the commissioner, I have no doubt that I would be investigating issues such as the portrayal of children and young people in the media, child obesity and perhaps even children in youth offender institutions. A whole range of issues may be of interest to the commissioner; it would depend very much on the agenda of the day. If the Bill
 is seen speedily through the House, it is our ambition to have somebody in post by Easter next year, and children and young people will be involved in that appointment.

James Clappison: May I take the Minister back to the earlier point about rights and interests? As well as amendment No. 52, we are debating Government amendment No. 163. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, as the Bill stands, and putting the rights question to one side, the commissioner has the function of promoting the interests of children? The Government amendment will change that to promoting ''awareness'' of the interests of children. Will not that be weaker than promoting the interests themselves?

Margaret Hodge: I do not agree. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the word ''interests'' should remain—although I thought that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham did not accept that. As we move on to the further functions of the commissioner, promoting awareness of the views of children will in practice ensure that their interests are promoted. We have used that phrase because we wish the Bill to reflect a sensitivity to what children themselves will be saying about how the commissioner works.
 I know that many amendments need to be debated and that the commissioner is not the only issue on which hon. Members have views. I shall move on. 
 Government amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 173 are all consequential to Government amendment No. 163. Amendment No. 164 would omit the word ''rights'' from the commissioner's general function in encouraging persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their views and interests. Similarly, amendment No. 165 would omit the word ''rights'' from the commissioner's general function, as set out in clause 2(2)(b), to advise the Secretary of State on the views and interests of children. Amendment No. 173 would remove the reference to rights in the general function of the commissioner in clause 2(8). 
 The UNCRC provides a set of principles or an ethical framework—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre agrees. It is a reference point around which the commissioner's work can be based. The outcomes that we want to be the focus of the commissioner's work are the drivers for tangible change; we hope for a real step change in outcomes for all children. We therefore want to retain the requirement for the commissioner to have regard to the UNCRC. 
 We genuinely believe that basing the work of the commissioner on outcomes, with reference to the UNCRC, will provide the best of both worlds. That is why, in my view, this commissioner will be the best of all. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will accept our intent, and that they will work with us to ensure that the commissioner acts as a strong champion and a voice for children.

James Clappison: I crave the indulgence of the Committee to make a brief contribution. I begin, Mr. Benton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship. I was keen to hear the Minister's reply to the debate. The Government's response is important, because they are changing the structure of the clause, which was put in place in the House of Lords with widespread, if not all-party, agreement. They are making a significant change and many would argue that the clause is weakened, so I should like to hear the Government's explanation for that. I appreciate the care that the right hon. Lady devoted to her explanation, but after listening to her careful and elegant contribution to the Committee, I am less convinced than I should like to be, if I were to support the Government amendments and vote down the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
 We have had a good debate this morning. It has been philosophical at times, but no worse for that. There is a debate to be had about children's rights. Without necessarily going far into such a debate, there are wider implications flowing from it which concern me. We are putting in place a Children's Commissioner, with a great deal of fanfare. When the right hon. Lady introduced the Bill, there was no modesty in her intentions. She spoke of a landmark Bill, its legislative spine, and a transformation in children's chances. She said that we could all look back on it and derive pleasure later in our lives from having taken part in such a landmark parliamentary occasion. 
 That may be the case, but I hope that if we are taking all the time and trouble to create a Children's Commissioner, spending public money on setting up such an office and devoting parliamentary time to doing so, we should have something that makes a difference. For it to make such a difference, it must be seen to be robust and independent. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to a commissioner with teeth, and I think that a Lord in the other place referred to it as having other physical attributes. Whether or not that is so, it does not seem to have recovered that robustness as a result of the Government amendment proposed today. It is important to have an independent and robust commissioner, who is seen as such. 
 I am concerned about the message that has come from the Government this morning about the character of the commissioner. We shall return to that question time and again. We have touched on it, and I know that we shall be soon come to amendment No. 170, but the right hon. Lady touched on it when she said that the commissioner, unlike those elsewhere, would not be able to investigate individual cases. She made the reasonable point that she did not want the commissioner to become bogged down, but looking at what the Government are proposing, they do not intend to allow the commissioner to investigate any cases at all. The commissioner is not duty bound to investigate all cases coming to him, and the effect of amendment No. 170—

Margaret Hodge: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman, and refer him to clause 4, where we say that the commissioner will be able to make inquiries on individual cases, where issues of national significance are raised, and where such an inquiry would not involve duplication. It was after listening to the debate in the House of Lords that we introduced clause 4 as an amendment. If the hon. Gentleman's concern is about the commissioner's robustness, he may be mistaken. That clause gives us entirely what we want. In cases that have wide significance, the commissioner can investigate, but he will not be bogged down in the day-to-day cases that could be referred to alternative tribunals and bodies.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected. We shall debate the point later about the commissioner acting at the behest of the Secretary of State. I have concerns about how the commissioner will be seen as a result of the changes that the Government are proposing today. I want an independent and robust commissioner, who is seen as such. Without going all the way into the rights debate, I feel that the commissioner's position is being diluted.
 By asking the Minister about interests, I sought to clarify whether the commissioner would be able to promote the interests of children or merely awareness of children. The right hon. Lady looks at me as though she thinks there is no difference, but I think it will widely be seen that there is a difference between promoting awareness of something and promoting interests. That is quite clear and will be seen as such. I am concerned that we are putting in place a rather timid commissioner.

Hilton Dawson: I agree that this has been a good debate. I regret that we have not each been given a copy of the UN convention on the rights of the child among the papers for this sitting. At times, it seems to have been characterised as a terribly narrow and dry document that attends only to the legalistic position of children. My right hon. Friend described it as an ethical framework, which it is—a broad ethical framework that encompasses a vast range of children's interests and needs, and which goes far wider than the five outcomes set out by the Government.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, within the framework, rights are a foundation stone rather than a constraint, and that they provide opportunities? Does he agree that by not including the word ''rights'' throughout the Bill, we are missing opportunities?

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for expressing that better than I did. Rights are a foundation stone. They are something to be built on, are acknowledged almost universally in the UN convention, and are principles against which our efforts to meet children's needs can be tested. There is nothing wrong with rights. There is nothing narrow
 about rights. There is nothing that rights impel us to do that we should not do. There is nothing about an emphasis on rights that would push the Children's Commissioner to operate as some sort of ombudsman.
 With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that she spent some parts of her speech tilting at windmills. In my years of taking an interest in the issue, I have come across no one who would say, ''We want a children's commissioner to do away with all the complaints systems, ombudsmen and children's rights officers, and to take on every single problem that comes their way.'' No one in their right mind would put forward that sort of model for a Children's Commissioner.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman has just erected a windmill of his own. Of course no one said what he suggested, but there are people who say that the commissioner should have the right to investigate individual cases. Is he one of them?

Hilton Dawson: I am indeed one of them. I join the Government in approving clause 4. It is plain that there are occasions when the Children's Commissioner needs to have the opportunity to investigate—for example, when a child's problem is not investigated properly, perhaps because the child falls between various institutions and authorities. I am not concerned about that, as I think the commissioner would be able to balance taking on individual inquiries with taking a wide-ranging approach to children's issues, as my right hon. Friend says, and considering policy development and how issues affect children.
 I hope the Children's Commissioner will take on the case of the child in custody who falls between the youth justice and the child care systems and who might be suicidal. I also hope that the commissioner will take on the issues that children regularly identify to me and, I suspect, to everyone else, such as transport, which is a priority for the Youth Parliament, bullying, which is a priority for very many children, and play areas, which children identified as a priority during the consultation but which is not reflected in the Government's five outcomes. Let us not assume that anyone is proposing that a children's ombudsman should replace all other provision. 
 The Government are clearly proposing that the Children's Commissioner should have a role in relation to interests, but not in relation to rights. The only difference between interests and rights is the significance that we attach to them and to the person who has those interests or those rights, and the duties that we impose, primarily on the state, to meet them. If we are serious about children, we should focus the Children's Commissioner firmly on rights. If we are serious about the commissioner, we should ensure that 
 he has the power to do the job. At the end of the day, this is about power. We need a powerful advocate for children in this country. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Children's Commissioner

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
schedule 1, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
 '(3) The availability or exercise of any power under this schedule shall not disbar the Local Government Ombudsman from considering a complaint about the performance of a local authority.'.
 May I, too, extend my best wishes to you, Mr. Benton, in your chairmanship of the Committee? 
 I move swiftly to the amendment, which is probing. It was tabled because of my concern about exactly where the Government stand on the commissioner's power to investigate cases. We have heard today about clause 4, and the Minister said a moment ago that the commissioner will be able to consider individual cases that have wider ramifications, if there is no other body to which a reference could be made. 
 I tabled the amendment because, from my conversations with the local government ombudsman and my constituency experience in other contexts, I know that the ombudsman has difficulty in determining his jurisdiction when there may be overlapping jurisdictions. For example, if a parent has the right to go to a SENDIST, a special educational needs and disability tribunal—even though they may not have exercised the right—the local government ombudsman does not have the power to investigate a complaint that might have been referred to the tribunal. 
 Every complaint, in the end, is justiciable under administrative law. There have been cases that have established that just because something is justiciable—just because it can be taken to court—the local government ombudsman is not excluded from 
 investigating. I tabled the amendment because I was concerned about clause 4(1) and (2). Subsection (1) states: 
 ''Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child raises issues of public policy . . . he may hold an inquiry into that case''. 
The power to hold an inquiry into a case that raises issues of public policy means that such cases may not be investigated by the local government ombudsman, unless there is an exemption elsewhere in the Bill to allow that to happen. 
 I suspect that the Minister will refer me to subsection (2), which states that the commissioner 
''may only conduct an inquiry . . . if he is satisfied that the inquiry would not duplicate work that is the function of another person''. 
I suspect that she will say that for this purpose the local government ombudsman is another person. That is all very well as long as the boundaries are clear, and it is clear that no inquiry will be conducted into a case if the local government ombudsman has a role. If that is what she means by the subsection, I think I am content, although I should like to ask the same question with reference to the parliamentary ombudsman. However, if she means that there may be cases that the local government ombudsman may investigate but the Children's Commissioner may also investigate, there is a danger that the case load will fall to the commissioner when it might otherwise fall to the ombudsman. 
 The amendment is intended to make matters rather clearer. I recognise that it is not perfect, but it is clearer than clause 4(1) and (2).

Margaret Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his probing amendment, which gives me the opportunity to make clear the importance of considering subsections (1) and (2) together. When the issue of the commissioner's independence was discussed in another place, there was concern that not providing the power to consider some individual cases would be seen as interference in the commissioner's independence. We were anxious to assure both Government and Opposition Members that we wanted an independent and strong commissioner. However, we did not want the commissioner to duplicate work undertaken by the ombudsman, the parliamentary ombudsman, the special educational needs and disability tribunal or many other bodies that could be mentioned. That is why we included subsection (2).
 We recognised that there would be some individual cases that had a wider public significance and interest. Historically, the Victoria Climbie tragedy would be one such case. Some circumstances of that case, which were investigated by the local authority and social services inspectorate, as it was at that time, and could undoubtedly have been investigated by the ombudsman in terms of the administrative competence of some of those in the local authority, could have found their way through the judicial processes. However, the case raised issues of such wide significance for the protection of children that it warranted an inquiry into it and its wider ramifications. In subsections (1) and (2) we have 
 provided the commissioner the ability to decide for himself that an individual case has such wider ramifications and, in those limited circumstances, to establish an inquiry.

Andrew Turner: In her explanation of subsection (2) the Minister has raised an issue of which I was not aware. She said that in the Victoria Climbie case, the social services inspectorate, who is a person, and the local government ombudsman, who is also a person, had the function but did not undertake the work. Is she saying that the commissioner may not investigate only when an investigation has been or is being conducted, or when in law a case could have been investigated? If it is the latter, the commissioner would not have been able to investigate most aspects of the Victoria Climbie case, because they were covered by the function of another person.

Margaret Hodge: We must consider the two provisions together. Let us take the Victoria Climbie case as an example. At the time, there was a section 8 inquiry by the local authority's area child protection committee into the circumstances of her tragic death. However, the issues raised both in that inquiry and during the trial were of much wider public interest—hence the provisions in subsection (1). Although in that instance work had taken place elsewhere, the wider public policy ramifications of the particular case were such that it warranted a public inquiry. There may be circumstances in which that situation prevails again once we have the commissioner in place.
 Subsection (2) ensures that the commissioner does not get involved in a range of individual complaints that other bodies such as the local authority ombudsman could investigate. However, when an individual incident or complaint has wider policy ramifications, the commissioner could instigate an inquiry into it. I hope that that makes it clear to the hon. Gentleman. It will be a matter of judgment for the commissioner, and in later clauses we suggest that the commissioner will want to discuss that with the Secretary of State. However, the provisions give the commissioner the essential independence, which people were worried that we were not giving, to pursue cases that have wider public policy implications.

Andrew Turner: I am sorry, but that does not make it clear. That is because ''duplicate work'' implies doing work that has already been done and is the function of another person. In other words, the commissioner can do work that has not been done but is the function of another person. The problem is that if the power exists to go to another person—in this case the commissioner—the local government ombudsman is excluded from investigating a case. It seems that we are in a circle and the Minister has not yet got me out of it.

Margaret Hodge: It is my understanding that the ombudsman would not be excluded, which is why subsections (1) and (2) of clause 4 need to be taken together. There may be instances where there are wider lessons to be drawn from a particular case and where
 the ombudsman, CSCI or another body has already undertaken an investigation, which would warrant an inquiry by the commissioner. Where there are wider lessons to be learned, the commissioner will wish to do so. However, practically, where a complaint is not covered by a complaints mechanism, will the commissioner fill that gap? I think that that was the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The answer is: only where there is a gap that has wider ramifications.
 Finally, to help the hon. Gentleman, we expect the commissioner to look at complaints procedures. If procedures do not cover the full interests or concerns of children, I have absolutely no doubt that, in investigating the working of those procedures, the commissioner will want to draw the Government's attention to a gap and that the Government will wish to respond to that.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall ponder what she said and read it with great care. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in
schedule 1, page 36, line 19, after 'by', insert
'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament after consultation with'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 6, in 
schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(1A) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve children and representatives of childrens' organisations in the process of appointment of the Commissioner'. 
Amendment No. 191, in 
schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve— 
 (a) children from the areas which the commissioner serves; and 
 (b) such organisations concerned with children's rights and interests as he considers appropriate, 
 in the process of appointment of the Commissioner.'. 
Amendment No. 120, in 
schedule 1, page 36, line 22, after 'by', insert 
 'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament with the agreement of'. 
Amendment No. 58, in 
schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children of England will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the Commissioner on their behalf.'. 
Amendment No. 192, in 
schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children that fall within the remit of the Commissioner will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the commissioner on their behalf.'. 
Amendment No. 121, in 
schedule 1, page 36, line 29, after 'State', insert 
 ', subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.
Amendment No. 124, in 
schedule 1, page 37, line 37, after 'to', insert 
 'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'. 
Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 13, after 'the', insert 
 'United Kingdom Youth Parliament and'. 
New clause 19—Non-availability of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament— 
 'If in relation to any responsibility under this Part the United Kingdom Youth Parliament is not able to act, the Secretary of State shall nominate a similar body largely representative (by election) of and comprised of persons under the age of 18.'.

Andrew Turner: When the UK Youth Parliament came to lobby Parliament on the question of the Children's Commissioner and, I believe, visited the Minister, the Isle of Wight youth MP, Megan Thomas, spoke to me, along with two members of the Isle of Wight youth council. They asked who would appoint the Children's Commissioner. Should the person be appointed by the Government—whom, they felt, the Children's Commissioner would frequently have to criticise—or by a quango consisting of the usual suspects or, according to one's view, the great and the good? Would the commissioner be appointed by the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Association of Directors of Social Services and so on, or would he or she be appointed by a body that was representative of children? I had to say that I did not know who would appoint the commissioner, because I had not read the Bill then. However, I have now, and I know that the Minister wants to do it herself.
 We have had youth councils on the Isle of Wight in many towns and villages for some time. For the past year we have had an Isle of Wight youth council as well, although it does not have powers and some would call it a talking shop. I should like to give an assurance that I do not regard the Isle of Wight youth council as a talking shop. Talking is a responsibility in itself, because it influences me and brings to my attention the issues that young people think are important locally. High on their list are public transport and bus fares, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned. 
 I have no doubt, however, that we can improve the responsibility of organisations by giving them a responsible task to undertake. That is why I tabled the amendments. 
 Amendment No. 119 would transfer the power of appointment from the Secretary of State to the United Kingdom Youth Parliament after consultation with the Secretary of State. Other amendments to the schedule would have a similar effect: amendment No. 120 sets out the terms and conditions of appointment by the Youth Parliament, and amendment No. 121 states that the Secretary of State may remove the Children's Commissioner from office only in consultation with the Youth Parliament. Amendment No. 124 is also significant in that respect because it states that the accounts of the Children's Commissioner should be sent to the Youth Parliament. In other words, there would be not only 
 responsibility but accountability to the Youth Parliament. Amendment No. 128 to clause 3(3)(a) would also require the commissioner's report to be sent to the Youth Parliament, which would therefore have a role in monitoring the commissioner's work. 
 I do not expect the amendments to have the Government's wholehearted and unequivocal support, but I want Ministers to explain for the record why the Youth Parliament or, as new clause 19 says, another body that is broadly representative and composed of persons under 18, should not have a role in the commissioner's appointment.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend has tabled interesting and probing amendments and I shall be interested in the Minister's response to them. I am a big supporter of the youth councils and the Youth Parliament; earlier in the summer I went to the Youth Parliament meeting in Lancaster, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, and had some exceedingly worthwhile and enlightening talks and discussions there, as I always do. I am a big supporter of the youth council in my town and of the county-wide youth council in West Sussex, where next week I will be taking part in local democracy week and in their day at County hall in Chichester. I shall be ritually humiliated by having to take part in game shows. ''I'm a celebrity get me out of here'' is one of the shows this year; last year it was Anne Robinson's quiz show. [Interruption.] I was not the weakest link, but the strongest, although I took a dive in the final round so that one of the Youth Parliament representatives could win rather than me, having wowed everyone with my knowledge of female pop stars' bottoms.
 Perhaps we can now get to the serious points. The role of the Youth Parliament is interesting; even if the Minister does not give it the powers that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight suggests in his probing amendment, it should be included in the process if it is to be taken seriously. Organisations such as the UKYP and youth councils should not be subject to tokenism. The Committee will agree that they play an important part in engaging with young people and including them in political processes. 
 Amendment No. 6 would insert an additional consideration in schedule 1 that, in appointing the commissioner, the Secretary of State, whatever influence the Minister may have on him, should take reasonable steps to involve children and representatives of children's organisations. That is a perfectly practical aspiration. Does the Minister agree with it? She nods her head, which suggests that she does. How will that be achieved in practice, and why is it not necessary to state it in the Bill?

Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was done very much in the way he has just described? Young people were involved in the process, although the final decision was left to the Minister with a recommendation from young people. Is he further
 aware that the organisations used to involve young people included Voices, which is the Welsh Voices from Care, so that a wide range of young people were represented? Does he agree that that model could be looked at?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady has swiped the second part of my speech. I was going to refer to the different status of, and the considerations used to appoint, the existing commissioners. In Scotland the commissioner is appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament, so there the Parliament has more of a role and can take soundings. In Northern Ireland the commissioner is appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly and has a status that is independent of Government.
 In Wales, as the hon. Lady points out, they have gone further in including as many people, particularly children, in the process as possible. The commissioner is appointed by the First Secretary of the National Assembly after taking account of the advice of the relevant committee, the views of relevant children and the advice of selection panel. That is all done independently of the Assembly. That is laid out in regulations 2 and 4 to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001. As it has been done that way elsewhere, I cannot see any harm in including in the Bill what I am sure is the Minister's intention. It is essential that the Children's Commissioner has the confidence of children. If he does not, his job will be 
 that much harder and he will not achieve some of the things that we need him to achieve and which are what the Bill is all about. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made some interesting suggestions with regard to one body that should be integral to the process. On a more general point, I would like it—and it would strengthen the Bill—if the Minister agreed to add the consideration about taking all reasonable steps. We are not being prescriptive; we are saying that it must be a serious consideration in the appointment. That would send out a strong signal to children, children's groups and young people that they are not merely going to put in their nominations and be patted on the head and told, ''That is very interesting,'' but that they will have a role in choosing the person who is going to be their champion. I hope that the Minister, in the spirit of co-operation and positivity that we have enjoyed so far, will take that on board. It strengthens what we are trying to do.

Hilton Dawson: I suspect that we are going to run out of time. Largely because somebody had the great good sense to invite two young people from the Lancaster and Wyre districts to join the young people's board, I am aware that arrangements are in place to ensure that young people are involved in the appointment of a commissioner and other issues. I hope that my constituents and others will be able—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.